About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
, rush limbaugh and other conservatives said the white house had cooked the books. even jack welch, the former ceo of ge, went on twitter to accuse the president of changing the numbers. >> i tell you, these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. >> reporter: the labor department called the allegations ludicrous. we went directly to the place where it's all done. this vast government building, a couple of miles from the white house, houses the labor department's bureau of labor statistics. the bls has been tabulating the monthly unemployment rate for more than 70 years. it's all based on a survey conducted in person and over the phone of 60,000 households every month. and here is where the numbers get crunched. amid a sea of high-walled cubicles, inside of each one, an economist sworn to secrecy and working on a specific aspect of that employment survey. tom nardone is in charge here. he's worked at bls since before ronald reagan was president. he introduced us to the economist who actually wrote this morning's unemployment rate announcement.
fell to below 8%? also jack welch, the former ge guy. >> yep. >> he's tweeting this morning and saying, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. i mean -- so is it possible the labor department is lying or has changed these numbers in some way? >> look, these numbers are often revised. usually when you have a vibrant growing jobs market a revision of 86,000 doesn't make any difference at all. you have much more jobs being created. we don't have that right now. in terms of why the two numbers are different, there are two different surveys the government does. hou household survey where they ask people wheer they're employed and a company survey where they ask companies how many people are employed. those are two different numbers. so that's why you have the number of jobs created or lost and the jobless rate. that's the technical data gathering reason. as for -- look, you'll hear conservatives say either they don't trust these numbers or they're going to say, look, 114,000 is the important number to look at here. that's not good en
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)